GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS Board of Appeal of OHIM
Tis decision of the opposition division was appealed pursuant
to Articles 58–64 of the
regulation but the appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).
It was held that that the mere fact that the ‘Halloumi’ mark was a collective mark does not mean that it is not of a weak distinctive character. So the board held that the ‘Halloumi’ mark was of weak character and coupled with the low visual similarities, there was no likelihood of confusion, despite the fact the marks were for similar and/or identical goods. Conceptually it held, in paragraph 23 of the contested decision, that Turkish was not an official language of the EU, with the result that even if the possible meaning of the word ‘hellim’ was to suggest the designation of a specialty cheese from Cyprus, this would have no impact since it had a purely descriptive meaning and could not be used as a basis for comparison of the signs.
General Court
Te applicant filed for an order at the General Court to annul the Board of Appeal’s decision. It was held that the board acted correctly in reaching the conclusion that there was no likelihood of
confusion. Te applicant put
forward an argument that the mark was at least of average distinctiveness due to its collective status. Tis argument was rejected by the court which held that the mere fact that ‘Halloumi’ is a collective mark does not automatically make it a mark of great or even average distinctiveness.
To quote: “It is true that Article 66(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 allows registration of collective marks, notwithstanding the fact that they could fall within the scope of Article 7(1) (c) of
“SHOULD IT BE
POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO ARGUE BASED ON MINOR VISUAL DIFFERENCES THAT THEY CAN REGISTER A MARK WHICH IS BASED UPON THE GEOGRAPHIC INDICATION/HERITAGE OF ANOTHER?”
been and thus the conclusion that the mark was of a weak character was unsafe.
2. Tat the General Court infringed Article 8(1) (b).
Te appeal was dismissed and ‘Hellim’ has been approved for registration. Terefore, it may not be wrong to say that halloumi is something more than just a generic name, but it is true that it constitutes a part of a country’s historic background, which is definitely worthy protection.
of
Paragraph 46 of the judgment elaborates on the matter:
“In paragraphs 25 to 27 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found, in essence, that the distinctive character of the earlier mark was diluted by the descriptive meaning of the word ‘halloumi’, with the result that the earlier mark described the product in question, that is to say, cheese. Tat sign describes, according to paragraph 27 of
nature and type of cheese thus designated and not its geographical origin or other characteristics marked by regional particularities’. Terefore it is vital to examine the likelihood of confusion (phonetic & visual).”
that regulation, the second sentence of
Article 66(2) states expressly that a collective mark cannot entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade, such signs or indications, on condition that that third party uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; in particular, such a mark may not be invoked against a third party who is entitled to use a geographical name.”
Te Board of Appeal took a different view. In paragraph 23 of its decision it held that the conceptual comparison was neutral. Te board said that as Turkish is not an official language of the EU, consequently, the possible meaning of the word ‘hellim’ in Turkish is not conclusive for purposes of assessing the likelihood of confusion.
www.worldipreview.com
Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the General Court found that there was a degree of conceptual similarity. Quoting a few cases, it said that conceptually, the Turkish translation of the Greek word ‘halloumi’ is ‘hellim’. Terefore in this view and in contrast with the Board of Appeal’s analysis, it cannot be disputed that the average consumer in Cyprus, where both Greek and Turkish are official languages, will understand that the words ‘halloumi’ or ‘hellim’ both refer to the same specialty cheese from Cyprus.
Te judgment was delivered on June 13, 2012.
Court of Justice of the European Union
An appeal was filed at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Te grounds on which the appeal was based were in short:
1. Te fact that the ‘Halloumi’ mark was a collective mark was not taken into consideration to the extent that it should have
Ermioni Pavlidou obtained an LLB from the University of Central Lancashire, UK and an LLM in criminal litigation from City University, London. She specialises in IP law and is a member of the Cyprus Bar Association.
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013 147
Considering the above decision, as well as the 10-year battle that Greece had in gaining exclusive right to use the mark ‘Feta’ in association with cheese, and that many may say that halloumi is to Cyprus what feta is to Greece, doesn’t this show a problem with protecting geographical indications/heritage?
If Greece had to go through 10 long years to protect its heritage and as Cyprus did not even manage to secure the exclusive use of its own mark of geographical indication, does that show a weakness in the law?
the contested decision, ‘the
Should it be possible for anyone to argue based on minor visual differences that they can register a mark which is based upon the geographic indication/heritage of another? Wouldn’t that mean that one can unfairly and unjustly take advantage of someone else’s heritage?
Ermioni Pavlidou is head of the IP department at Michael Kyprianou & Co LLC. She can be contacted at:
ermioni@kyprianou.com.cy
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196